Which satellites? I presume OCO and some other one? And how do journalists so frequently fail to include core facts in their articles?
OCO and Glory, according to space.com.
Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
61–70 of 231 posts
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#62They really should be held accountable for the amount of loss that their fraud caused, not just what they gained from the fraud.
What they did was despicable but that's not really fair either. If defective aluminum they sold was direct cause of 2 billion bridge collapse would they be liable for that amount?
If there was fraud involved why shouldn’t they be held liable?
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destruction of $700m property due to negligence certainly seems jailworthy to me. At the very least, this company should be paying a fine which actually recovers the damages.
That can only be done if first, it can be proven that it was poor materials that caused the failure, and two, it's only useful if the company can actually afford a fine like that. You also have to consider what your motivation behind punishment is; is it re-education? Is it compensation of damages? Or is it to just completely bankrupt the company because Never Again? I mean in that last case, NASA and the US as a who…
Funny how these are never a consideration when it’s an individual’s life on the line.
Edit: on second thought, these often are considered for individuals, as long as they’re sufficiently sympathetic/rich. See for example Brock Turner. I should say, funny how these are often not considered for individuals, depending on who they are.
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#64Somebody at Sapa, probably somebodies, need to go to prison. For 19 years, to match the time of the fraud.
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#65When interviewing for a job at a company making pressure sensors primarily for the oil industry, I got a look at their testing rooms. The sensors were usually placed deep in some well or at the bottom of the ocean, so had to function for ages without maintenance. Switching out a faulty sensor is either very expensive or impossible. The final testing room had a window with a couch and table in the adjacent room. The i…
They missed a great opportunity to stick a porta power on the wall and let the customer choose to apply the test pressure themselves. That says "we're so confident it will work you can test it yourself."
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#66> A metals manufacturer faked test results and provided faulty materials to NASA, causing more than $700 million in losses
...
> the current parent company of Sapa, agreed to pay $46 million to NASA, the Department of Defense and others to resolve criminal charges and civil claims related to the fraud
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, how is the penalty only $46 million? Should be multiple billions of dollars. And the employees who faked the tests should be in prison.
I’m not suggesting prison but some kind of charge, even if it’s a misdemeanor, is needed. Whoever faked the test result needs a record that would hopefully follow them. Would you rather hire someone who was busted with a small amount of drugs or someone who faked test results for NASA?
Depends on the details of the situations. The dude who tried to sneak coke past border security has poor judgement. The dude who rubber stamped the Friday at 4:55 test after every test that week passed is just human.
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#68The linked DOJ report has far more detail [0]. On the penalties themselves: According to court documents, SPI has agreed to plead guilty to one count of mail fraud, and SEI has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in connection with a criminal information filed today charging the company with mail fraud. As part of the plea agreement, SPI has agreed to pay $34.1 million in combined restitution to NASA,…
The deferred prosecution agreement essentially means that as long as the SEI adheres to the financial terms of the plea agreement the government will eventually drop the charges [0]. That's an amazing deal in its generosity and I'm sure that the financial penalties levied are outweighed by the financial gain realized over the years of their fraudulent activity. The rationale for not pursuing the company for the full…
> rationale for not pursuing the company for the full $700 million dollars lost escapes me
Satellites are usually insured. (Not sure about NASA protocol, though.) If that’s the case, the insurer will sue. Shareholder lawsuits will also, naturally, follow, as will suits from all the other customers.
Agree, though, that it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea.
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#69Chinese suppliers did this to a mining company in Australia. Put fucking asbestos brakes on the ore cars (train). Cost a fortune to clean up.
Many cheap knockoff chinese automotive brake pads still contain it. Buy name brand on brakes, for more reasons than that. Its also good if the compound actually stops the car in time.
Living near mountains I witness brake failures (usually fires!) daily, its no joke. Check your pads, change your brake fluid every 3-5 years. Its cheap and can save lives, including your own. No feeling is more heartsinking than the brake pedal going to the floor with no resistance when you need it most.
Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure
#70They really should be held accountable for the amount of loss that their fraud caused, not just what they gained from the fraud.
What they did was despicable but that's not really fair either. If defective aluminum they sold was direct cause of 2 billion bridge collapse would they be liable for that amount?
Generally, yes.
Put yourself on the other side. Someone breaks into your house, steals a painting and pawns it off for $500. Unbeknownst to them, it was worth $10,000. Breaking in, they broke a window. Unbeknownst to them, you're traveling, and that leads to $50,000 in flood damage. Guess who is liable: the crook or you?
It might be unfair that they took on a $60,000 liability for $500 worth of gain, but it's far more fair than if you took on a $60,000 liability.
Base damages are usually the greater of the damages caused to the victim and the gains to the culprit. There are exceptions (treble damages, statutory damages, etc.), but that's a fine baseline.